lol it feels good pretending to be elite and pretending to know some sort of "esoteric" knowledge and "explanations" for every problem. "OH YOU'RE COMPLAINING YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE ECONOMY WORKS! IT'S QUITE COMPLICATED". lol, the economy doesn't fucking work. it's a charade.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-18 17:44
>>40
Lol, when all else fails in an argument simply say the other party doesn't understand.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-18 20:30
If you don't respect Libertarianism, you still can not defend your support of a nanny government in its place.
Those are hypocritical comments. It's also easy to laugh off someone if they say you don't get it, especially when you really don't get it.
When someone legitimately tries to make point that is supposed to critique some libertarian position, it completely misunderstands it. They then claim the exact thing as you two say, or opponents argue the view of libertarianism is "too simplistic" "not reality" etc.
>>44 or opponents argue the view of libertarianism is "too simplistic" "not reality" etc.
That's because it's true. Every time someone make a good argument against libertarianism, the libertarian says something to the effect of "oh, he just doesn't fully get libertarianism" and they don't even attempt to refute any of the points written in the critique. This happens like clockwork. If you're not willing to refute any of those points, then it's not so much the person critiquing libertarianism, but possibly that arguments for libertarianism don't hold up to close scrutiny.
I am not a libertarian because I am not a teenager anymore and see their ridiculous oversimplifications, irrational disdain for the public sector and equally irrational worship of the market as the rubbish it is. A libertarian state would descend into either full-on anarchy or become a dictatorship within a year.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-19 13:41
If healthcare is regulated by the govt. Then there will have to be some sort of blanket code established that lays out the req. for what each citizen must receive. If this is true then it becomes harmful for companies to innovate or offer new techniques, procedures, or services. Companies will only offer what is required. There is no incentive to innovate.
Under the current system Government and the Private Sector fund research through universities which helps drive innovation. For Profit companies also fund R&D and develop medical equipment, drugs, procedures, ect.
If you subsidize health care then you will take away a large chunk of the money being used for development. Because as stated before providers will only provide what they are required to.
Also taking money in the form of taxes and using it for things that do not directly affect you ie defense, infastructure ect. IS FUCKING RIDICULOUS. Why should the money i earn be forcibly taken from me and given to others.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-19 13:46
>>47
What a coincidence, I'm neither a republican nor a democrat because I'm not a teenager anymore and fail to see the difference between the two, irrational disdain to the public sector, and equally irrational worship of Hollywood as the rubbish it is. We descended into a corporate police state within a year under Bush, and in that same time frame Obama made it even worse.
>>48 If healthcare is regulated by the govt. Then there will have to be some sort of blanket code established that lays out the req. for what each citizen must receive. If this is true then it becomes harmful for companies to innovate or offer new techniques, procedures, or services. Companies will only offer what is required. There is no incentive to innovate.
Under the current system Government and the Private Sector fund research through universities which helps drive innovation. For Profit companies also fund R&D and develop medical equipment, drugs, procedures, ect.
If you subsidize health care then you will take away a large chunk of the money being used for development. Because as stated before providers will only provide what they are required to.
This is still a facet of how things are done with countries that have universal, fully subsidized health care. Innovation is still done by a combination of R&D, academia, and the government, which also facilitates the other two. Even if health care is completely non-profit, universities still have their own R&D departments, and despite what libertarians think otherwise, governments too.
>>50
Lets assume you really were libertarian and understand most basic aspects of it accurately as possible. So then in comparison, what position of a political philosophy that you associate yourself with now, was a main factor that changed your thinking? There must have been at least one issue from the point of a liberal, conservative, etc, that converted you.
I prefer the term "capitalawesome". Without the safeguards of capitalism these corporations would simply be run more directly by the state, and no, that's not a good thing even if they are democratically elected. I don't see why people drag welfare and utilities into this anyway, very few tax dollars actually find their way into the pockets of the working class or public works, more might actually reach the poor if it were left in the hands of the top 0.00001% super ultra rich, anyway most of it is pork spending on suspicious schemes like social security.
What "safeguards"? In a free market anything can happen. There are no written rules or regulations, there are phony formulas though which corporations are "expected" to follow. How exactly do you enforce the "rules of the market" if the state has no role and don't give this "it enforces itself bullshit". We all know that's a lie.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-26 19:05
>>63 How exactly do you enforce the "rules of the market" if the state has no role and don't give this "it enforces itself bullshit". We all know that's a lie.
There are no rules, thats the point.
Competition would be able to limit the power of most corporations more than the state ever has, at least if you buy out a small company as a giant corporation there will just be another small company there ready to take its place whereas with the state you only have to bribe a few senators and you have power for a long time.
Don't you get it? If you control all the resources and the means of production (like these monopolies do), no competition will ever form.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-26 20:10
>>65 Don't you get it? If you control all the resources and the means of production (like these monopolies do)
I doubt that no competition will ever form.
There will always be competition, having a state makes it harder for competition to form.
>>65
How can anyone do that? Control all the resources and the means of production? There are natural limits on what people can control, at least through accidents, fraud, and the like.
That's why tribal societies are so prone to potlatch and the like, using internal gifting and sharing rituals. The tribe's chief really only has status, not real power. So he can not actually control all those resources himself. So he has to pretend that he does, as long as he gifts or even destroys those resources in a social ritual.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-26 22:48
AND WITH ONE LINK, ALL LIBERTURDIANS WAKE UP TO THEIR STUPIDITY
>>68 >>70
You obviously don't understand what a monopoly is, just because you're left with no other choice but to use the monopoly doesn't mean it's the only choice.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-27 1:36
>>68 >>70
Let me rephrase, it doesn't mean there are no alternatives.
For instance if there is a monopoly on who is allowed to operate railroads and the owners start charging exorbitant prices for freight you can pass anti-trust laws to break up the monopoly and force them to compete.
And you can listen to your favorite radio station only because the Federal Communications Commission brings organization and coherence to our vast telecommunications system.
Why does the FCC have a monopoly on providing organization and coherence to telecommunications? If another organization can provide this service why are they banned from operating? Because the FCC should be given special priveleges even though they provide an inferior service?
Libertarians have no understanding of law or civilization.
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-27 15:19
>>74 ignore everything that's been said The fact that people have no choice but to use a monopoly does not justify the monopoly.
The fact that people have no choice but to use a monopoly does not justify the monopoly.
The fact that people have no choice but to use a monopoly does not justify the monopoly.
The fact that people have no choice but to use a monopoly does not justify the monopoly.
The fact that people have no choice but to use a monopoly does not justify the monopoly.
I know you will continue to ignore facts, I'm just making it more obvious.
Name:
Ancapist2011-08-27 16:11
So is libertarianism growing, or is what I'm seeing just a growth in the "liberty" movement associated with Ron Paul's popularity?
Name:
Ancapist2011-08-27 16:15
>>75
Also, fucking this. I was struggling to put it in words. You did it perfectly. The "durr libertarians use roads and the internet, so that makes libertarianism invalid" agrument is just....just....I'm trying to find words for it.....buttfuckingatuisticreatrded
99% of the public get ALL of their information from Fox News. You guys are wasting your time. Looks like they want Rick Perry to win, therefore, HE WINS! Doesn't matter what you say to the average person, the media has already formed their opinion for them. Who knows, next week they might decide on a new puppet they want in office, but they are in control, they don't like Ron Paul, and they always win.
The people get the government they deserve
Name:
Anonymous2011-08-27 19:53
Ron Paul's popularity? Not likely.
>99% of the public get ALL of their information from Fox News.